Intuitively I knew an idea like this must exist, but had no idea of how it could be formulated. If it is indeed accurate, even just to a point, it's probably one of the most important abstractions/heuristics/ideas I have ever read.
> Adjointness is only a part of the story. One often sees equations of the following form inverse(x) = adjoint(x)/norm(x). Once you have adjoint and norm, you magically get inverse.
That said, I am often spectacularly ignorant and easily seduced by simple views of complex things, but if there were name for this form or axiom, like Nemecek's axiom or something, I hope it sticks.
> Adjointness is only a part of the story. One often sees equations of the following form inverse(x) = adjoint(x)/norm(x). Once you have adjoint and norm, you magically get inverse.
That said, I am often spectacularly ignorant and easily seduced by simple views of complex things, but if there were name for this form or axiom, like Nemecek's axiom or something, I hope it sticks.